yuque_web_delete_doc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the delete is soft (moves to recycle bin, implying recoverability via restore_recycle), auth is cookie-based with no membership requirement, and a destructive guard (confirm='DELETE') is required. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the cookie-based nature and soft-delete behavior, then the endpoint, the alternative rationale, and the confirm guard. Dense but every fragment is relevant; the Chinese pointer to a reference doc is the only slightly dangling element.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth mode, effect (recycle bin), prerequisites (no membership), and the safety guard. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, though the trimmed-vs-raw return behavior is only implied via the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so id, book_id, raw, and confirm are all documented in the schema, including the confirm='DELETE' guard. The description restates the endpoint path and the confirm requirement but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource (delete a document) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling yuque_delete_doc by describing itself as the cookie-based alternative when the Token is rate-limited/expired. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit condition for choosing this tool: use it when the v2 delete_doc path is rate-limited or expired, and notes no membership is required. It stops short of stating the inverse (use v2 delete_doc otherwise), but the context needed to select it is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.